TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad to file an appropriate revision application before the Commissioner of Income Tax, within a period of one year thereafter, and at any rate, explaining the delay caused in filing such a revision application beyond the said period. In the present case, the revision application was filed seven years later. By no stretch of imagination, such long period can be ignored. The petitioner simply, cannot take shelter of non-communication of the intimation or acceptance u/s 143 (1). If, the petitioner wanted to dispute his own declaration in the return, he had to take appropriate steps before the Commissioner of Income Tax within the period of limitation prescribed which in the present case, is not done. - Writ Petition No. 170 of 2019 - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoned. The petitioner's assertions in the revision application in this respect may be noted. 11. It is further brought to the kind notice of your honour that the applicant/assessee applied on 01-06-2017 for issuance of the certified copy of the intimation for the Assessment Year 2007-08. It may kindly be appreciated that the applicant/assessee was not served with the intimation/demand under sec.143 (1) of the Income Tax Act and realised for the first time on 12th and 13th May 2017, on receipt of notice under sec.245 of Income Tax Act, regarding incorrect acceptance of the income-tax return filed by him for the Assessment Year 2007-08. It is submitted that, therefore, limitation for filing present application/represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the revenue, opposed the application contending that intimation under section 143 (1) was duly served on the petitioner and in any case, the petitioner could not have waited for several years for filing the revision application. 6.1. In the present case, we are prepared to proceed on the basis that intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act, was not served on the petitioner. We also recognize the right of the petitioner, to persuade the Commissioner of Income Tax, to delete the income declared in the return, if it would otherwise, not taxable. 7. The question in the present petition, is one of limitation in filing the revision petition before the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
